Comment Sign your mail, stupid! (Score 1) 447
I've read a lot of the traffic here, and I'm surprised that so many people still just don't get it.
The only way to deal with spam is to end its anonymity. Any method you choose: white list, black list, heuristic filter, blocking server names, blocking server types or Net access methods etc are all gonna fail.
First, some unsolicited email is welcome. So there has to be a way to get welcome unsolicited mail (the comments below about the ATT exec and ATT marketing people wanting to get blocked mail make that point.) So there will always be holes in the wall blocking spam.
Second, spammers are persistent, and can engage in nearly costless experiments to penetrate spam barriers. Actions taken to block the less persistent will breed fewer but more aggressive and persistent spammers. (That's also why laws can't work. They only work on the law-abiding. Only outlaws remain, routing through China.)
The only thing that will solve the spam problem is authenticating the sender. This could be over in a matter of months. If AOL and MSN were to provide digital signatures to their subscribers (they already have authentication information for them), and offered to block any incoming unsigned mail, everyone else would have to sign their mail in order to reach aol and hotmail accounts. In ATT's case, if they were to provide a digital signature to each users account, and only use the whitelist filter on unsigned, incoming mail, they would also foster the end to anonymous email, and, as night follows day, to spam.
In that environment, the various countermeasures actually work. Or you simply block any unsigned mail, and pursue any signed spam through laws or civil action.
The rub, of course, is that ATT, MS and AOL send out their share of spam......
The only way to deal with spam is to end its anonymity. Any method you choose: white list, black list, heuristic filter, blocking server names, blocking server types or Net access methods etc are all gonna fail.
First, some unsolicited email is welcome. So there has to be a way to get welcome unsolicited mail (the comments below about the ATT exec and ATT marketing people wanting to get blocked mail make that point.) So there will always be holes in the wall blocking spam.
Second, spammers are persistent, and can engage in nearly costless experiments to penetrate spam barriers. Actions taken to block the less persistent will breed fewer but more aggressive and persistent spammers. (That's also why laws can't work. They only work on the law-abiding. Only outlaws remain, routing through China.)
The only thing that will solve the spam problem is authenticating the sender. This could be over in a matter of months. If AOL and MSN were to provide digital signatures to their subscribers (they already have authentication information for them), and offered to block any incoming unsigned mail, everyone else would have to sign their mail in order to reach aol and hotmail accounts. In ATT's case, if they were to provide a digital signature to each users account, and only use the whitelist filter on unsigned, incoming mail, they would also foster the end to anonymous email, and, as night follows day, to spam.
In that environment, the various countermeasures actually work. Or you simply block any unsigned mail, and pursue any signed spam through laws or civil action.
The rub, of course, is that ATT, MS and AOL send out their share of spam......
